It does not look like The New York Times had a very good Christmas. As Spencer covered, the outlet published an op-ed on Christmas Eve from the Gaza City mayor that not only goes after Israel for its response to the October 7 terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas, but did so with little mention of that attack, and even with an inaccurate framing of why the Israel-Hamas war started, claiming "Israel began its war on Gaza in response to the deadly attack by Hamas."
This was not the only poor editorial decision made by the outlet, though. That same day, as our sister site of Twitchy picked up on, the outlet published a piece going after Justice Clarence Thomas, specifically his clerks, with the headline of "Clarence Thomas’s Clerks: An ‘Extended Family’ With Reach and Power."
The New York Times' X account shared the article in the early morning hours of Christmas Day, garnering over 700 replies as of Tuesday evening. Many users have called out the outlet for such coverage, but have also mocked the idea that a U.S. Supreme Court justice having successful law clerks who also stand by him would be such a newsworthy topic.
Do the clerks of the liberal justices now work at McDonalds are are they pushing liberal ideology at universities and top law firms now too?
— Sunny (@sunnyright) December 25, 2023
If you find it offensive for people to collaborate and build influence in our society... you should consider talking to the many liberal minded Democrats and start shaming them for their influence...and why stop there... look at yourself in the mirror and have a conversation…
— David Whitt 🇺🇸 (@CallMeBigGuy) December 25, 2023
It's almost as if Justice Thomas puts a lot of effort into selecting smart, hard working law clerks.
— Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer) December 25, 2023
In addition to highlighting how Justice Thomas' clerks are successful people in their fields, and that they stand by the justice, the piece also goes after his wife, Virginia Thomas. She's also been the subject of obsessive focus from Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media due to her questions about the 2020 election.
One section of the lengthy piece also suggests that Thomas' clerks were selected based only based on ideology, as if that somehow conflicts with their accomplishments:
For many years, Supreme Court clerkships were considered largely nonpartisan. Accomplishment — top grades, law review membership, recommendations — rather than ideology was the currency required to win one of the coveted jobs. Aspirants usually worked first for a feeder judge, one of a small group of prominent federal judges with close ties to the justices and track records of sending clerks to the high court. The justices did not uniformly select from Democratic or Republican-appointed appeals court judges, and prospective clerks were expected to apply to all nine of them.
As the country has become more polarized, so, too, have the clerkship ranks. The current justices have overwhelmingly hired clerks from judges appointed by a president of the same party as the one who appointed them.
Justice Thomas has fully embraced the trend. In 2010, The New York Times noted that all 84 of his clerks had trained with Republican-appointed appeals judges, and that pattern has largely continued in recent years.
“I’m not going to hire clerks who have profound disagreements with me — that’s a waste of my time,” Justice Thomas said during an interview in Dallas in 1999. “And someone said that’s like trying to train a pig. It wastes your time and aggravates the pig.”
The word choice of "[r]ather than" raises eyebrows, as if clerks for conservative justices couldn't also be picked based on "[a]ccomplishment." But, as this section is forced to admit, Justice Thomas is not alone in how he chooses his clerks based on a shared political ideology.
This further raises the question then as to why The New York Times felt such a pressing need to publish the piece.
It's also a racist take, though, with Justice Thomas being a black man, though too many on the left can't handle that an accomplished black man would dare to be conservative.
Totally normal thing is dark and nefarious because of a black man?
— QTheLibertine (@QTheLibertine1) December 25, 2023
You guys okay over there at the former newspaper?
Why does the NYT keep attacking a person of color?
— Ronnie Serpico (@RonnieSerp) December 25, 2023
It's Christmas, so time to attack the black man.
— JWF (@JammieWF) December 25, 2023
Given how flashy it's meant to appear, from the headshots of 18 of Thomas' clerks, to the numerous photos and screenshots of emails, to the close to 30 minutes it would take to read the close to 3,500 word article, you could tell The New York Times thought they were on to something.
The targeting of Justice Thomas is nothing new, from Democrats or their allies in the mainstream media. It adds even further insult to injury that publishing op-eds going after Israel and a news piece going after Justice Thomas is how the outlet spent such an important holiday.
Just last Thursday a column from David Harsanyi also highlighted how "The Drive-by Smears of Clarence Thomas Never End," which referred specifically to yet another smear campaign from ProPublica.
Democrats have even premptively after Justice Thomas and his wife when there's absolutely no need to. As we highlighted earlier this month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) called on Thomas to recuse himself when it comes to deciding whether former and potentially future President Donald Trump has immunity. Special Counsel Jack Smith made such a request of the Court. Although the Court agreed to grant an expedited review of the cert petition, they ended up not even taking the case for the time being.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member